Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010030142026 2026:GAU-AS:3639 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./481/2026 RUSTAM ALI ALIAS MD RUSTOM ALI S/O-MD. SOHRAB ALI, VILL- NO. 2 SONAPUR, P.S.- BIHPURIA, DIST.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, R KHA,MR. S M RAHMAN,MS. P AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. M I Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/4 Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 05.02.2026 in connection with Gorchuk P.S. Case No. 14/2026 u/s 61(2)/318(4)/179/180 of BNS Act. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is innocent and he got arrested only on the basis of the statement made by co-accused/persons. However, the present petitioner is in custody since last 36 days and hence considering his period of detention, he may be released on bail. He further submitted that three co-accused/persons have already been granted bail by this Court and considering the case of the present petitioner on the same footing, he may also be granted bail on the ground of parity. 5. Mr. Hussain further submitted that though there is compliance of Section 47 of BNSS but, there is no communication on the grounds of arrest to his family members u/s 48 BNSS till date. One W.T. Message was stated to be sent to North Lakhimpur police station by Gorchuk P.S. But, till date the family members were not intimated about the arrest of the present petitioner, which otherwise violates the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Hussain however submitted that the present petitioner is still ready and willing to extend his further cooperation in the investigation of this case, if he is granted with the privilege of regular bail. 6. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner, who is stated to be the main culprit in this case. After coming to know about his involvement, the police also searched his house, wherefrom fake Page No.# 3/4 currency note amounting to Rs 1 lakh and two gold like items were also recovered from his possession. He further submitted that from the Forwarding Report itself it is seen that the police took all endeavour to inform the family members of the accused/petitioner and to that regard they not only made telephonic calls but, also provided with the 48 BNSS notice through Lakhimpur P.S. Mr. Borthakur accordingly raised objection and submitted that it may not be a fit case to grand bail to the present petitioner at this stage. 7. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, without going to the further detail of the case, only considering the ground of parity and the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that I/O got sufficient opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner, keeping him in custody and hence further custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M). The accused/petitioner, namely Rustam Ali @ Md. Rustom Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and Page No.# 4/4 (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant